Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
Since this is such a huge issue, I am going to post this same question on other fishing boards!
Isn't it about time for the tribes in Washington State to "walk the talk"?
Here's an idea that can help mend many a hard feelings between the white man and the Indian.
Since the Boldt decision, the tribes have been maximizing the benefits from the federal government and taking every advantage possible, such as getting grants to do habitat recovery work, etc., etc. on their Reservation lands
Well wouldn't it be noble statement from our Northwest American Indian Tribes to donate just one day worth of all of their "combined casino profits" to a special fish habitat recovery fund? Since the tribes have no problem in being entitled to harvesting 50% of the states harvestable fish, wouldn't it be noble for the tribes to actually give something back to nature instead of just taking it from her? We hear how much these fish mean to them culturally, but we never see them doing anything outside of their reservation to improve the fish's habitat.
Think of the money that could be generated in just one single 24 hour period? How many of you fishermen would go out for just one night of gambling and spend $50 or $100 bucks if you knew that "profit" from same money would good directly back into a special fish habitat restoration fund? Just think of the PR that it would give to the tribes. The tribes would not only benefit directly from the PR, they would also see the benefits from their 50% share of the returning harvestable fish.
I see lots of non profit groups each year that raise money for just such projects, but I do not ever recall seeing one single tribe make such an effort.
The funds could be co managed so that both tribal and non tribal habitat work could both receive the benefit.
Finally, I have been told that not all Casinos' on Tribal land are being run by the tribes. Some have private companies running them and all the financial gain is in jobs for tribe members. Never the less it would benefit them in PR far more then the one day in finical rewards could possibly do
So what do you think, could it be done?
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 13062
Loc: In The Briar Patch
|
|
In my neighborhood.....the Skokomish tribes is using those grant dollars to help restore the lower Skokomish River estuarine habitat. Sure they gain from this but so does everyone who fishes the Skok. The Point No Point Treaty Council used those dollars to restore and improve habitat on the Quilcene. The Elwha's helped restore habitat on Deep Creek and is a major participant in the Elwh River restoration. The Jamestown are helping on the Dungeness and JimmyCome Lately Creek. All of these efforts benefit the tribes and all of us. I personally welcome every bit of their efforts. What tree are you barking up CFM? 
--------------------
"Seen worse".....
It's Gonna Be A Long Winter
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
Spam Kills x 8
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
Gooose
Sorry to get your "feathers up" but I think that this idea could generate a tremendous amount of money, and could greatly benefit "all of our fisheries" instead of just a few tribes!
If you want to criticize the idea, that's fine. But what is wrong with trying to do more? Do you really believe that the tribes are doing all that they can? You know better then that, and its time for the tribes to pay there share to insure the recovery of our fish. It would appear by your defensive attitude, that you think that it's all up to the white man to rebuild our fishery. I hope that I am reading you wrong! If they are entitled to 50% of the fish, then they are also entitled to 50% of the cost.
It looks like may agree to disagree on this issue.
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
ManOfSteelhead
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/22/02
Posts: 583
Loc: port angeles
|
|
CFM- while the idea could float, I think you really are being a tad bit harsh. I'm sure that the tribes put a hell of a lot more percentage of their money towards habitat restoration in general than the non-native fishing population of the northwest. Also, you contradicted yourself in your post by first saying, "we never see them doing anything outside of their reservation to improve the fish's habitat" and then stating "they would also see the benefits from their 50% share of the returning harvestable fish." You may or may not know this, but, to my knowledge, tribal harvesting is limited to the reservation, so the tribes would in no way yield a higher amount of harvestable fish by helping other rivers than the one(s) on their reservations. I think that a better, more practicable idea would be to have a volunteer aided hatchery system, as is already in effect in many states across the country, where money is saved by having volunteers do fin-clipping, feeding, and planting smolts. There could also be a statewide volunteer river restoration team set up, similar to current river restoration groups in existence (i.e. Friends of the Cowlitz and Streamkeepers of Clallam county). Just some thoughts you might want to take into consideration.
--------------------
-Ben Sobel AKA Salmonboy & ManOfSteelhead
Rocky Brook Rod and Hackle Pro Staff
Cheap-A$$ Pro Staff
|
Gooose
Offline
Ancient Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/14/01
Posts: 13062
Loc: In The Briar Patch
|
|
Reality is that there are very few cases if any where what the tribes are doing wouldn't benefit off reservation fisheries. I can't even come up with one where a tribe would be the sole beneficiary of those grant dollars and habitat work. I'd surely stand corrected if you could point one out to me? Do I disagree with your idea or criticize it? Yes and no. The tone of your proposal and inferences that tribal habitat efforts mostly only benefit the tribes is disagreeable to me but the basic idea of it has merit. Of course we might also ask all of the major corporations that richly benefitted from all the lost habitat and water to pony up also? Well anyway the heart of your argument rests on examples where a tribe has solely benefitted from federal grant dollars to restore/improve habitat on a reservation. Examples please if you will?
--------------------
"Seen worse".....
It's Gonna Be A Long Winter
There's lies, damned lies and then there are statistics......Mark Twain
Spam Kills x 8
|
potter
Offline
olympic mud minnow
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/03/00
Posts: 824
Loc: Quinault Reservation
|
|
More money for habitat is always good. Although not casino generated funds (which would not be a lot from the Quinault Beach Resort right now as the payments eat up the most of the money) the Quinaults have built over-wintering ponds on the Clearwater and Wishkah River. They have been busy rebuilding the Queets coho runs using wild broodstock for a decade. They have supplied the fish food & manpower for Ocean Shores marina net pens the last 2 years, and they have spent several hundred thousand dollars collecting 98 percent of the data used to manage the Queets & Quinault rivers, and about 50 percent for the Humptulips and Chehalis. The Queets is very important as historically it had the lowest coho run on the coast and was the driver of the ocean fishery. But hey, write the tribes...ya never know
|
Hairlipangler
Offline
sockeye
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 89
Loc: Pierce Co.
|
|
CFM, your idea is pro-active and creative. And as previously suggested you should email the tribes and or casinos. And while your at it, invite them to join the forum to discuss salmon related issues. I would be interested in thier reply. If you have a contact email address, i'm willing to give it a go.
And thanks for the help with the regulations clarification on another thread. You were right.
Hairlip
|
buxndux
Offline
Extremely Sensitive Mod
Profile Status:
Reged: 09/29/00
Posts: 3292
Loc: Sequim
|
|
I have heard alot of good things that the tribes have done for fish and habitat. I have also heard of alot of good volunteer efforts. What I do not hear much of is the government actually getting out and making changes. Believe it or not, the state has money. Why should we just ask the tribes to donate? Why not ask our leaders to look at the improvments that the tribes have made, and follow suit?
--------------------
Team JACE
|
cupo
Offline
cookin' reels and killin' wading boots
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/26/01
Posts: 2334
Loc: speeding on 530
|
|
MOS, tribal harvest is not limited to the reservations.
--------------------
This can't be healthy. All this fishing is really messing with my head.
|
Eddie
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 12/11/01
Posts: 181
Loc: Puyallup
|
|
Let's take it one step further CFM, let's have the forest industries do the same, and the pulp and paper industries, and the land developers, and the home builders, and the ...well you get the idea. Every one of these industries have PR flacks that proclaim loudly that these groups are helping the environment, fish runs, etc. What do you think?
--------------------
"You're not a g*dda*n looney Martini, you're a fisherman!"
RP McMurphy - One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
|
Hairlipangler
Offline
sockeye
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/22/03
Posts: 89
Loc: Pierce Co.
|
|
Anybody here develope property latley? The restoration or creation of wetlands/retention and/or greenbelt areas is now the biggest pain of the building process. If you have enough money or clout, you can smooth it out some. But even the big boys are feeling the enviornmental sting!
More to the point, developers and such are not alloted 50% of the fish. I only know the cost of our projects, but it is substantial. The accumulative amount statewide must be sizeable to say the least. Collectivley speaking, we all pay those costs one way or another.
What do the tribes pay for in the developement process and how? Really, I dont know and am only asking for answers, not slaming anyone.
It doesn't seem we live by the same rules. That's what gets me. 50% of the fish should mean 50% of the responsibility to save the fish. For everyone! 
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
ManOfSteelhead
It sounds to me like you are saying that the tribes do not need do any other habitat restoration work above their own reservation lands, because the reservation is the "terminal tribes fishery zone". Is that correct?
Then you say; "to my knowledge, tribal harvesting is limited to the reservation, so the tribes would in no way yield a higher amount of harvestable fish by helping other rivers than the one(s) on their reservations." How does that logic work on the Columbia River? How does it work of the Tribal harvest of the shad?
I do not believe that you are correct! What about the tribes that have reservations in the middle of a main stream river such as the Chehalis River? There are hundreds of miles of habitat above their reservation lands in tributaries such as the Newaukum and Skookumchuck that fish use for spawning. Yet, the tribes are allowed 50% of all the harvestable fish that return to that system. Those fish are all harvested by the tribes in the lower river, so what you have said doesn't really hold much water. If the tribes did additional habitat restoration work above their reservation, they would increase the available habitat for production which should increase the amount of harvestable fish.
________________________________________________________________
buxndux
I am sure if you do your homework, you will find that the "state" has given the tribes lots of money for "habitat"
You say;" Why not ask our leaders to look at the improvments that the tribes have made, and follow suit?"
Where do you think that the tribes got all of that money to do it from. . . .the tooth fairly?
How much money do you think our WDFW spends each year on habitat?
Yes, it is true that the tribes have made some habitat improvements, but it's been made with 90% from the white mans tax dollars and not theirs! If I am wrong bring on the facts to show so.
________________________________________________________________________
It appears that most of you have just skipped over the wording that I had used! That word was "noble". Everyone already knows that the timber companies, pulp and paper industries, land developers, and the home builders, could care less, and never have had any concern about doing anything "noble" for the fish. They do everything for money and that’s it!
But the tribes have told us that the white mans ways are wrong and that they "respect the land and habitat" that support the ceremonial fish.
You got to remember that we are talking about a race of people who have for hundreds of years now, have become depended on the hand outs from the white man to better there race. After they were conquered by the white man, we gave them land to live on (reservations). Then we made them even more dependent on the white man for there own survival. Now they must depend on the white mans money to bring back their habitat that support their ceremonial beliefs that fish are part of their ancestral culture.
So what's wrong with encouraging them to do something noble for their own race and for the fish? One would think that the tribes would want to be an independent nation that did not depend on the white mans money to restore there culture. Maybe people would once again believe that the tribes are still a noble race if they could once again do something noble, and not ask the white man for the money to do it! It's easy to take the white mans money and then complain about how bad the white man has managed the lands, but wouldn't it be noble of the tribes to show the white man that they truly do care about the fish and not just the money and "walk the talk"!
Anyway, they do have an opportunity now to put fish ahead of profit, and show the white man that they do really care about the fish.
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
potter
Offline
olympic mud minnow
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/03/00
Posts: 824
Loc: Quinault Reservation
|
|
"After they were conquered by the white man..."
I assume we are talking about western Washington tribes, right?
If so here's a brief history for CFM. The tribes were recognized as the legal owners of western Washington by the US government. The US government entered into a treaty with the tribes. Nobody was conquered here. There was no war. It was a land deal. The tribes were forced to give up ownership to most of the land but held onto certain rights on that land.
"we gave them land to live on (reservations)"
I think you have that backwards. The US government took the land from the same tribes they recognized as the legal owners. How could the US government give the tribes land they already possesed?
I've got a new challenge...learn the correct history
|
Index Hooker
Offline
to hot to trot
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/24/03
Posts: 4322
Loc: hangin with the locals.
|
|
hey potter,
could you point us (me) towards a good web site or book to learn the rael truths of the hestory of the tribes of western washington.
i would be very interested in any info you could give.
thanks pete  
--------------------
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
"Gettin' old ain't fer wimps!!"
In memory of Lonnie aka. Bigdogg2250
Ain't no Sunshine when she's gone
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
Hey potter
Here is my challenge to you. . . Read your dictionary!!
Conquer; to search for, procure; get what one seeks; to seek; acquire; to get possession or control of or as by winning a war; to overcome by physical, mental, or moral force; get the better of; defeat;
Conquer also implies gaining mastery over someone or something by physical force, mental, or moral force [to conquer bad habits].
You say;" There was no war. It was a land deal. The tribes were 'forced' to give up ownership to most of the land but held onto certain rights on that land."
"Forced/conquered …..hummmmmm!
Which one of these 10 definitions do you believe didn't apply? I suppose that you believe that the tribes just gave us there land without being "forced" into doing so. . . right?
Do you really think that the tribes "gave us" their land? I guess that would depend on if you are reading the white mans book or you were reading the Indian version!
Sounds like they were "conquered" to me! Maybe not by a single "war" but by the definition of Webster; they were conquered! Sorry, but I don't think that they are going to change the history books or the dictionaries just to satisfy you. I'll try to learn a little more about history, if you will try to read the dictionary a little more often!
Like Indexhooker said; "could you point us (me) towards a good web site or book to learn the real truths of the history of the tribes of western washington."
Fair enough?
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
Edited by Cowlitzfisherman (08/05/03 10:12 AM)
|
ManOfSteelhead
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/22/02
Posts: 583
Loc: port angeles
|
|
CFM-
I never said that the tribes shouldn't help out at other places than directly on their reservations. I said, "so the tribes would in no way yield a higher amount of harvestable fish by helping other rivers than the one(s) on their reservations." I never said that they should only help out only with the portion of the rivers on which their reservations lie. They should help the entire river, but not be forced to help other systems. It would be nice, but so would more volunteer efforts from non-tribal groups as well. What I'm saying is that everybody should help out, everywhere, and not just the tribes, and not just non-native people (notice I've used the term "non-native" and not "white". There are other ethnicities who fish out there as well. For the purposes of this conversation, I am lumping non-native americans together, since you lumped all native tribes together.) You obviously need to read posts more closely. On large river systems where there is more than one tribe that harvests, each group should get the percentage of harvestable fish which proportionately equals the percentage of people within that group which harvests fish (i.e. a total of 20,000 people fish a system including tribal members and non tribal members, and Tribe A has 8,000 members, Tribe B has 4,000 members, and non-tribal fishers total 8,000. In this case, Tribe A would be allotted 40%, Tribe B would be allotted %20, and non-tribal fishers would be allotted 40%). As to columbia shad, I really don't care how much is harvested by anyone considering the fact that they are a plentiful non-native species that probably should not have been planted there in the first place.
--------------------
-Ben Sobel AKA Salmonboy & ManOfSteelhead
Rocky Brook Rod and Hackle Pro Staff
Cheap-A$$ Pro Staff
|
Neurosis
Offline
Town Alchoholic
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/02
Posts: 1490
Loc: Seattle
|
|
Territorial status and statehood: In 1846 the present U.S. – Canadian boundary was established, and Washington became part of the United States territory of Oregon two years later. When it was separated from Oregon in 1853, the new territory contained fewer than 4000 with inhabitants and stretched from the Pacific Ocean to the crest of the Rocky Mountains. The first territorial governor, Isaac I. Stevens, moved quickly to extinguish Native American title to the land and to improve transportation, the two keys to rapid settlement and economic development. The treaties negotiated by Stevens in 1854-55 were an attempt to defuse tensions between natives and settlers, but for various reasons the treaty structure quickly deteriorated, and intermittent warfare took place between 1855 and 1858. Because of this strife, and numerous delays in constructing the northern transcontinental railroad, the territory languished until the 1800s.
Info taken from this url.
|
BW
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/08/02
Posts: 161
Loc: Lakewood /wa
|
|
CFM, there was no force of any kind used. The Government brokered a land deal with the Tribes of the Northwest. And that is why they always win in court. This was a buisness deal a contract if you will and it is still binding.
|
Lupo
Offline
sockeye
Profile Status:
Reged: 06/14/03
Posts: 91
Loc: seattle
|
|
i think that one day of casino profits going to fish restoration would be a great idea and fund raiser. lets not get bogged down in the periferal issues and the white/red thing. it would be a great fund raiser and I am sure that the fishing groups could have a lot of fun getting together on that night. I would not mind losing a coupla hundred bucks if i could get drunk at the same time and know that my losses were going to a good cause. I know we have locked horns before cfm but this time i think that you could really be on to something.
I also think that this year should be used as "year one" to set a base amount of fishing licenses thru WDFW. so that if this year they sell 100,000 licenses it would be considered 100% if next year they sell 120,000 licenses it would be considered 20% above the base amount and the funds from that 20% would be used to cross-subsidise the white commercial industry. IE: if that 20% (escapement if you will) equals (20,000 times $46) roughly one million dollars. at .50 cents a pound that would pay for 500,000 pounds of fish except wdfw would be paying that amount to leave the 500,000 pounds of fish in the water. of course the money would not be direct aid because that causes dependance but it could be used for educational grants or other grants to lure white commercial fisherman into other industries. that way when their allowable takes keep getting smaller they will have less ability to show unemployment as a direct result of catch cutbacks and less ability to lobby a government that has given them the opportunity to educate themselves for free and pursue other industries. I know that it is easy to just say the hell with them, why should we pay them anything, just cut back the allowable catch amounts and they can deal with it. but they allways seem to get around that somehow. strong white commercial lobby i guess. I know that was a convoluted rant but hopefully the idea makes a little sense in text.
we must remember that white commercial took the majority of the fish before the boldt decision and they should be geting more heat than they are getting.
anyway cool idea cfm... we all need to do a little more thinking and solution searching.... and if your idea takes, a little more gambeling
--------------------
Fisherman: the jerk on one end of a line waiting for a jerk on the other
Keebler cracker pro staff
|
Neurosis
Offline
Town Alchoholic
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/02
Posts: 1490
Loc: Seattle
|
|
Quote:
hey potter,
could you point us (me) towards a good web site or book to learn the rael truths of the hestory of the tribes of western washington.
i would be very interested in any info you could give.
thanks pete
Another source for some good information if someone wants to to allot of reading. Its probably a bit too much for me but i'll be reading it anyway just for the hell of it. Im not sure who's point of view everyone is looking for but if its just a bit of education here is a place to start.
Man... I must not have much to do at work today. 
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
ManOfSteelhead
You said; "(notice I've used the term "non-native" and not "white". There are other ethnicities who fish out there as well. For the purposes of this conversation, I am lumping non-native americans together, since you lumped all native tribes together.) You obviously need to read posts more closely"
I am going to answer two different replies with this one answer. 1) "Whites" is the correct term that is currently being taught in the Indian history. So "white man" is also an appropriate name to use in the context of what I had written. ( read the history of the Northwest Indians at the listed web site below).
Neurosis
2)If you want to find a really good web site that explains the history of the Northwest Indians go to: http://www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/hstaa432/index.html#intro
ps; sorry Neurosis, it looks like we were both looking at the same web site! 
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
Edited by Cowlitzfisherman (08/05/03 12:12 PM)
|
Neurosis
Offline
Town Alchoholic
Profile Status:
Reged: 10/29/02
Posts: 1490
Loc: Seattle
|
|
I try to stay out of these debates due to lack of education on the subject so I don’t feel like I could add any worth while comments or for that matter even form an opinion but I have to say that I am glad that this comes up once in a while because I think it sparks my interest enough to try to learn a little something. Sometimes I get the feeling that allot of the opinions I see are made due to lack of education which makes me want to do the research even more.
That is a good site CWF if you have lots of time to read.
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
This is what has caught my eyes!
"Specifically, the Boldt decision guaranteed Indians the right to catch one-half of the commercial salmon harvest every year (even though Indians in western Washington amounted to no more than 2% of the total population). With the precipitous decline of runs of salmon, this decision put pressure on Indians and non-Indians to co-operate with one another to protect the remaining salmon fisheries of western Washington"
One half of the "commercial salmon harvest"! Does this mean that if we did not have a "commercial harvest", that the tribes would not be entitled to one half of the fish?
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
ManOfSteelhead
Offline
Chromer
Profile Status:
Reged: 02/22/02
Posts: 583
Loc: port angeles
|
|
CFM
you once again took what I said out of context. Can't you see my forest of writing through the wordy trees? I was not talking about conquering anything with that qoute, I was talking about mutual effort towards restoration of ecosystems by all people who use them. When I said, "You obviously need to reed posts more closely," you apparently took my advise in too literal of a mannerm, and thusly zoomed in on a specific phrase, without applying it to the rest of my writing. If you have some sort of retort to something I say, answer all the aspects, as I have done with your statements. It would have been much simpler and less time consuming for me to try to get around the questions and statements, but I didn't. I'd appreciate it if you would do the same.
P.S. I do think the origional idea is good, I just apparently have a bit of a different perspective on life than you do, as in one of equal responsibility for all, and that doesn't necesarily mean less responsibility for some. Remember, take what I say literally unless accompanied by some sort of graemlin such as a or
--------------------
-Ben Sobel AKA Salmonboy & ManOfSteelhead
Rocky Brook Rod and Hackle Pro Staff
Cheap-A$$ Pro Staff
|
Index Hooker
Offline
to hot to trot
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/24/03
Posts: 4322
Loc: hangin with the locals.
|
|
hey marty, ever think of starting a fishing politicks/laws/and policy board?
seems like it could take off.
--------------------
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
"Gettin' old ain't fer wimps!!"
In memory of Lonnie aka. Bigdogg2250
Ain't no Sunshine when she's gone
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
ManOfSteelhead
Take nothing personal, but I do hold people to what they say! Sometimes I may read them wrong, but most times I don't! I always answer people in the same way that I would like to be answered in. I really didn't understand why you brought up that "white" thing, so I answered you in the only way that I knew how to….up front!
I will not spend my time or efforts in rebutting everything that someone may say to me, but I will refute what I believe needs to be.
Finally, you said:" I just apparently have a bit of a different perspective on life than you do, as in one of equal responsibility for all, and that doesn't necesarily mean less responsibility for some. Remember, take what I say literally unless accompanied by some sort of graemlin such as a or ..
To me, gremlins are used way too often to cover ones real message or feelings! I am sure that we have a large age difference, and that may well add to any confusion between us. I will always be frank and up-front, and people how know me can bank on that one!
Thanks again for clarifying our differences.
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
Index Hooker
Offline
to hot to trot
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/24/03
Posts: 4322
Loc: hangin with the locals.
|
|
                    :breaking news: 
ok what am i trying to say?
--------------------
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
"Gettin' old ain't fer wimps!!"
In memory of Lonnie aka. Bigdogg2250
Ain't no Sunshine when she's gone
|
Cowlitzfisherman
Offline
steelie
Profile Status:
Reged: 07/02/03
Posts: 230
Loc: Cowlitz River near Toledo WA
|
|
Index Hooker
You tell me!
Cowlitzfisherman
--------------------
CCA Your Best Bet For The Fish
|
potter
Offline
olympic mud minnow
Profile Status:
Reged: 08/03/00
Posts: 824
Loc: Quinault Reservation
|
|
Ouch...conquered by Webster.
Sorry my dictionary (The American Heritage, third edition) only has two definitions:
1. to defeat or subdue by or as if by force of arms. 2. To overcome: surmount.
Bottom line-the treaty was/is a legal binding contract between 2 governments
|
Index Hooker
Offline
to hot to trot
Profile Status:
Reged: 01/24/03
Posts: 4322
Loc: hangin with the locals.
|
|
what i'm trying to say is "i'm board" not with this thread just in genrel.
sorry cfm but you failed this test but i'll give you a bonus round.
what's index trying to say 
this is a personle attack on myself so no flying off the handle anyone.
--------------------
"Don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."
"Gettin' old ain't fer wimps!!"
In memory of Lonnie aka. Bigdogg2250
Ain't no Sunshine when she's gone
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
